All i'll say is good luck and godspeed

Scientific proof debunking the "run your car on water" scams

 

Sorry if I came across as attacking people. I'm not exactly known for my tact.


As for this link: the guy that wrote this is obviously not understanding the purpose. The HHO is used as a supplement. NOT as a primary fuel source. Nevermind the fact that even I wouldn't trust anyone selling a cell for $100+ that I can personally build and modify to my liking for $20. I also would never trust said person selling the cells with claims of 40% increase in mileage. I would have to say at MOST 20% is about all you will ever see, more realistically would be no more than 10%. But 10% is a pretty fair return for something you built for $20.

 

This has been discussed ad nauseum here: https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/7...water4gas.html

Oh, and just to keep ya safe DO NOT USE STAINLESS STEEL for the electrodes!

The Chromium in SS WILL produce hexavalent chromate gas which will kill you quickly......

Good luck with your experiments...................You'll need it.........

 

Aaaannd crushing defeat to the pipe dreams of HHO. Read the whole thread and subsequent links, it pretty much covers every question I had. Confirmed suspicion.

 

I hope this works for you. I have some more documents from water4gas and I would gladly send them to you, but they are in my home PC which is stored away in a storage unit about 4 hours away. another member from another message board bought these plans which are mostly engineering schematics of the entire system. there was documented videos and builds on vehicles that have been driven regularly for a specific amount of time with a hydrogen system added. Claims state very noticeable mileage improvements. If I do get my PC back up someday soon I will let you know.

 

Alright, so I ran across these concepts a while ago, but finding literature to go through for free/cheap wasnt exactly easy. Most people are saying it's BS, or are throwing out statements like "well if it works, why don't the manufacturers do it". First off, thank you for posting this information, site and pointing us to this literature. Even if it doesn't ever work, it is still interesting information to go through.

Admittedly book 1a was a night mare to read, so I skimmed through it, reading the section heads, and then stopping when something seemed relevant. Book 1b (these names are what they are called in the download sections if anyone is interested) described the actual construction of the device. It may discuss implementation, but I haven't gotten that far yet.

The author, Ozzy Freedom, made note of a couple of things that I believe are relevant. The first is that the concept isn't to replace the type of fuel we are using, but to supplement the gasoline on the combustion cycle. This has already been noted a couple of times. The second valid point he made was that the amount of energy that is lost from the combustion to the wheels is enormous. He quoted the US DoE and left several links. I am following up and checking his research to verify his findings, but if the research is correct, then approximately 64% of the energy created is lost in the travel to the wheels and also to heat generation. There isn't a whole lot that can be done about the heat generation, and there is always going to be energy losses in the mechanics of the the engine, transmission, drive lines and axles. This energy loss can be mitigated by using premium oils and lubricants, we all know this, but can't be completely eliminated.

Ozzy Freedom's concept is to try and recover some of that energy loss. I have to agree that this is not a bad idea. There are concepts all over that describe ways to recover energy losses. For example, I don't remember where I found it, but I can try and find it, but I read one study that showed that using clutch-less mechanical fans for cooling used as much as 20% of the energy created by the engine, a clutch fan used approx. 10% and an electric fan uses approx. 2%. We all agree that the alternator can cause a load on the engine, but there is a possible 8-18% gain by going to an e-fan versus a mechanical fan, and e-fans can use A LOT of power. This is a common upgrade, and everyone knows it provides additional power and additional economy if we can limit our desire to push the gas pedal.

Another valid point that the author made was that this will not likely provide economy right out of the gate. He pointed out that it has be known to provide immediate results, but it usually doesn't and requires tuning the vehicle to the additional setup. This makes perfect sense to me. He made a note that this system (among other things) has a similar affect of increasing the octane rating of the gasoline that we burn. If this really is the case, then it's possible a six liter tune-up might show results. A wider spark plug gap, a high power ignition coil, good plug wires, rotor and cap and a spark timing advance will provide additional power. This concept is also proven. But this system could have the potential to allow us to do this, or maybe go a little further on the timing advance without causing adverse affects on the motor and without having to pay the price of higher rated fuels. Again, does it work, yup, if we can control our right foot.

I am still in the middle of book 1b. I am going to continue reading through them. I am interested in implementation and the various other experimenters results out there. As to the question as to why the automakers don't use this, I find myself agreeing with Ozzy Freedom, but I also thought of something else. This concept requires tuning to each vehicle. The automakers will never know what each individual person is going to want from their vehicles, and that I am sure that the thought of tuning each of these vehicles individually is considered a net loss versus a net gain.

nothercrash, keep it up. Once I get my truck squared away, I plan on giving this a shot myself. Also, if your trying to save your cash, my wife recently finished implementing something in our house that cost us only about 50 bucks, but IS saving us a fortune, and paid for itself in the first month. I don't want to hi-jack your thread, so let me know if anyone is interested.

 

Of course we are interested, anything that saves us money we want toknow about.

 

lol Good luck.

 

Alright, a couple of months ago I got started on a huge money savings kick, spent weeks researching. I am still researching, but the only thing that I was able to get my wife to do was this. I sent my wife to the local UPS store and told her to buy a large roll of bubble wrap, then to the dollar store for a spray bottle. She cut the bubble wrap to the dimensions of each of my windows, and using the spray bottle to mist the windows, she fastened the bubble wrap to the windows. This turned out to be an effective method of retarding thermal conduction. Yes, it looks like hell, but still lets in enough light that we don't have to turn on the lights during the day.

My house is in Central Texas and was built in 1971. I have single pane, aluminum frame windows. It will cost me 10K to have all my windows upgraded to new efficient windows. This gave me the same benefit, for FAR less. In the summer, my AC usually kicks on 8-10 times per day. My wife reported that it was kicking on 6-8 times in March/April. After she did all but 1 of the windows (we agreed that this one window we wanted to have a clear view) she reported that my AC kicked on 1-2 times per day. The following months power bill was compared to the same month last year, and we had saved something like $55. Paid for itself in one month. This will help dramatically, since my historical monthly power bill in the summer is upwards of $175 per month. I have an in-ground pool, thats part of the reason why it's so high.
BuildItSolar: Solar energy projects for Do It Yourselfers to save money and reduce pollution - Found the idea in his half-plan. It was on the last project on half-plan part 3.

I did not come up with this idea myself, and every bodies results will be different based on desired home temperature, insulation factors and age of the home, but it is effective. The guy who did it (link to his page posted above) I believe had double pane windows. He implemented in the winter of Montana, and using some kind of tool, showed definitive, verifiable results. Our thermostat stays at 75*.

I also researched and found a way to automate a homes power system and HVAC system to conserve as much power as possible. I wrote a 12 page paper on it, based on 7 months of energy usage and estimated savings. It showed that (on my house), it could have an ROI of just over 2 years. I am willing to give it out if anybody wants it. PM me. My research was largely based on DoE, Home Depot, Lowes, and some various college studies conducted between 1999-present.

That's as far as I am going with it, I don't want to further hi-jack this thread.

 

Just finished the second half of book 1. Going to book 2 now.

One thing that occurred to me in this. The system requires using a constant flow of gas into the engine. This would then mean that there is a LARGE amount of wasted gas. Figure approximately a 50% waste of the generated gases are lost through the exhaust cycle of the engine. One thing that I am curious about (and maybe somebody considered this in book 2) is can the intake of the gas be limited, preferably mechanically, to just the intake/combustion cycle of the motor? This would give a MUCH larger amount of used gas versus the 50% waste otherwise created.

It would be a much larger, more complicated system, but worth looking at. Probably not feasible on our trucks though without modifying the intakes. Anybody have any thoughts or ideas on this one?

 

I'm from West Texas, so I am very familiar with the heat issue. We used window tint on all of the windows. Had the same results as you described, but the house didn't look like crap afterwards.

 

I'm sure glad someone finally mentioned this (heat) after reading through this entire thread.

First of all, Kudos to you wanguy, you figured out what most home owners never can.... a house that leaks air increases the expenses to keep it at the same temperature!

If houses had ZERO windows, the heat loss would be marginalized enough that energy bills would be reduced significantly enough to save you money in the long run. Of course, we as humans have preferences to how we like our temperatures, and living in a sealed attic (as your house without windows would simulate) is not ideal, so a house with no windows is not reasonable.

Yet for some reason, it seems that not too many people want to believe that their homes leak air... "my house leaks?? HOW?? IMPOSSIBLE!!! It was JUST built!"...

Anyways!! On to scrutinizing the information at hand!

One very large component that you have all left out until very late in this thread is the actual combustion process from a chemistry stand-point...

<DD>2 H<SUB>2</SUB> + O<SUB>2</SUB> → 2 H<SUB>2</SUB>O(g) + heat </DD>
Here is EXACTLY what all of you are talking about, minus the addition of gasoline (which isn't important at this time).

Notice how the very last thing to be mentioned in this chemical process is heat? Energy, in the form of heat is one of the biggest pains in our sides once this reaction occurs, because it's very hard to control and keep to a minimum.

Because our vehicles are generally gasoline operated for the most part (minus the diesel lovers), the addition of hydrogen to ANY gasoline mixture would be extremely difficult for many reasons:

1) outfitting our vehicles to accept hydrogen and transport it to the engine for combustion is extremely difficult, because hydrogen cannot just be poured into a tank and pumped into an engine... it requires a sealed system in which the hydrogen cannot escape due to its density being lighter than air. In a sense, merely pumping into the engine will allow it to literally float away because our engines are carbureted... They have a giant hole in the top that allows airflow in, but also out...

2) ...Wish I had my textbook with me at the moment, but wikipedia will do for the time being (and for the sake of arguement).

The heat of combustion of hydrogen is:

141.80 MegaJoules / kilogram (MJ/kg)

or for all of you non-metrics out there:

61,000 British Thermal Unit / pound (BTU/lb)

The heat of combustion of gasoline is:

47.30 MegaJoules / kilogram (MJ/kg)

or for all of you non-metrics out there:

20,400 British Thermal Unit / pound (BTU/lb)

This means that our vehicles will undergo a LARGE increase in heat given off to the component of our engines during the combustion process if hydrogen is added. Of course, different mixtures of hydrogen and gasoline will result in different temperatures, based on the ratios of the mixutre... but the end result is still the same when adding in hydrogen... we increase the temperature...

Now, our engines are designed to keep consistent temperatures with fans and coolant systems during a GASOLINE combustion process. Adding in this extra heat will not only result in the need to upgrade our engines excessively to accomodate the new internal temperatures, but it will also most certainly never be able to pay itself off in the long run (given a vehicles lifespan).

You would need to upgrade so many components on your engine, that this upgrade process deems the hydrogen combustion results as negative, on a scale of saving money ... not what we're shooting for.

3) This has already been said, but I will say it again...

The amount of hydrogen you produce by electrolysis is so minimal, that you'd need a powerplant dedicated to producing the stuff through water and ions which results in a negative swing in spending... again, not what we're shooting for

Of course, small applications of hydrogen are always possible, but constantly producing the stuff would take too much time and energy for the amount of savings it's offering to be worth-while.

This entire process really reminds me of the idea of a rail-gun.... Yes, sure.. it's possible. Is it profitable? No... Does it justify the means to which you have to spend money to create it? No... So then, it's not useful, is it?

I think you guys can test this all you want and bicker about how things could or couldn't work, or how maybe there is something that some person testing before us was missing as a "link" to how this can work. In reality, ON PAPER it works... but it's not a practical application for any real-life situation.

Yes, automotive companies have tested the BEJSUS out of this, and come up with squat. They do their testing in a lab. We're doing our testing in a garage.

Likelihood of sucess: slim

Likelihood of failure: almost certain

 

Lol, thank you. Your right, most home owners don't know. Ironically, I told my dad about this, who moved to east Texas a couple of years ago from California. He has been building houses for 40 years (I did it too for 6 before I enlisted), and he was pretty shocked by the simplicity of this little concept. I still have work to do as well, like insulating my attic in August (3" thick at the moment) and I am hoping that will get my AC down to 1 time per day. Probably not going to be likely, but I can hope.

Now, back to this very interesting conversation.

Okay, so at this point, I was expecting that at some point you would mention the inclusion of gasoline in this process. The idea is NOT to burn pure hydrogen. Instead to add it to the air mixture just before combustion. Does hydrogen produce more heat than gasoline, absolutely. No argument here. But since we are not burning pure hydrogen, and not even burning a very large amount of hydrogen, it is simply adding to the air mixture. In this manner it could be possible to thin out the A/F mixture, go past stoic and possibly reach 15,16:1 or more. Hydrogen is more explosive than gasoline, so more power is possible.

The other thing that hasn't been mentioned here is the catalyst. Now, I am not a chemist, and I will not even begin to try and dissect how this works without several more weeks of research. But, there is more in the water than just, well, water. This guy is using baking soda. Others are using different chemicals to assist in the electrolysis process.

On paper, yes it looks good. However, I am not going to count this synonymous with communism yet. According to this guys work, the maximum amount of power that he has seen required to run a multi-cell (6 in this case) was 136 watts. Car stereo systems use just as much and in a lot of cases, more power than this, and they don't even offer the remotest possibility of replenishing that lost power.

Now, on pages 90 of book 1b (is anyone going to and actually read this stuff besides the two or three of us), he talks about using multi-cell systems. The concept is simple. Using a small amount of baking soda to 1qt of water will draw a certain amount of power. Now, apparently (I would have to test this to be certain), there is a maximum amount of power that can be drawn, before the energy is transferred into heating the jars. That limit appears to be at 1.2 volts. After this, any more power is given directly towards heating the jar and is a loss of energy. Okay, makes sense. In reality (again, this is based on the authors work), that power point seems to be closer to two volts.

In this guys work, a single electrolyzer as he calls it (sure, why not), will draw 12 volts. 2 volts is used for the electrolysis and 10 volts is dissipated in heat. For every electrolyzer put in system, the power delivery is divided by the number of electrolyzers in the system. So 6 electrolyzers would draw all 12 volts, divided by 2 volts each. The actual wattage used would have to be checked with a multimeter.

What I haven't read yet, how much gas is actually CREATED in a single electrolyzer? He hasn't mentioned it. He did however site at least two instances where someone had hardwired there system into a manual switch and forgot to turn them off, resulting in a very dead motor at the end. The shortest time was while some guy was at a movie. I haven't verified this though. One instance resulted in a cracked intake, and another resulted in blowing off the hood of a car. This implies enough to be of use, if implemented correctly.

As far as cooling, I am not certain that our cooling systems would fail under this possible increased heat. And would there be any increased heat? We are talking about burning only miniscule amounts of hydrogen, not massive amounts. By your own statement, hydrogen is more powerful than gasoline. This implies it will take considerably less hydrogen to attain the same desired affect.

Okay, so this method of hydrogen production isn't the best way. The other ways to produce it also produce a large amount of chemical byproducts. This method doesn't really produce anything worth mentioning, except maybe hexavalent chromium, which may not be produced in sufficient enough quantities and the whole system can be built to not produce this possible byproduct. It is also important to say that hexavalent chromium can be mixed with sugar and turned into Chromium-3, which is not hazardous. (Maybe, further research is still required).

Finished book 2a, on book 2b. 2b is pretty interesting stuff too.

 

Even when running very small amounts of hydrogen, you'll be getting increased temperatures, regardless of what the hydrogen is replacing.

I saw that you noticed how hydrogen burns 3X hotter than gasoline at the same amount. If you replace 1 kilogram of gasoline with 1 kilogram of hydrogen, you get an influx of nearly 100 megajoules of heat. That's a very significant amount!

Even if you did somehow reduce the amount of hydrogen being included in the mixture to 0.0001 kilograms, you cannot deny that it will not increase the temperature when compared if it was 0.0001 kilograms of gasoline, simply because it will combust hotter.

Now! The trick to all of this heat exchange is it's location. Yes, it's not JUST about the heat and that's NOT what I was only trying to get across. I did mention that it needs to be a sealed system (lightbulb ).

If somehow the hydrogen were to LEAK out of the chamber and into another location besides where gasoline and air mix and combust, you'de be getting increased temperatures in locations where they are not used to being increased. I'm sure we can all use our imaginations at this point and figure out ways that this could affect our engine (which I will now refer to as our system).

In this type of discussion, it's very important to remind everyone that looking at the larger picture is worth more than anything. While breaking down this concept of using hydrogen seems useful, it requires a much larger view to be held while researching and thinking up ideas. I.E. More than just combustion inside an engine.

Many problems can go wrong, and what wanguy quoted is just one of them. Remember, we need a sealed system in order for this to work properly, which is what I'm trying to identify as one of the problems. Wanguy is now merely pushing my identified problem along its way.

You are very right, baking soda IS INDEED a catalyst in this process. Finally, someone with a sniff of chemistry hahaha. A catalyst is simply:

A product or solution that is added to a reaction to decrease the amount of time the reaction takes to occur WITHOUT being used up.

In the case of baking soda, you would add it to the mixture and the water would be used up by the reaction. If we had a perfect world (we don't but it's close enough, again, for sake of arguement), you could boil off whatever water is left from the reaction once you've let the baking soda and water react to make HHO, and you'd get EXACTLY the same amount of baking soda back.

Hense, a catalyst.

Chemistry 101 my friend. It's very simple to work out on paper. Volume of water with volume of baking soda is all that's needed. Well, and a chem textbook and a bit of a background in it, but that's all really.

The only bad part is that it would all be theoretical because no system is perfect, and it would be constantly changing. While the water is being used AND evapourated, the system would change how much gas is being produced because of the ratios in the mixture.

Because this process is changing all the time, it becomes a time-dependant relationship, which is MUCH more difficult to calculate. I would assume that it follows an exponential relationship that peaks at a certain point of ratio between water volume available and baking soda in the mixture.


Of course there would be increased heat. As you mentioned earlier, hydrogen needs to be consistently added to the mixture, not in spurts. This means a consistent increase in temperature, if not, rising increases.

As I've already mentioned, even though you are replacing 0.0001 kg of gasoline with 0.0001 of hydrogen, the increase is still significant in terms of temperature difference between the two. Again, it's not only the inside of the engine we need to worry about, it's the outside as well (carbed engines) because of the availability for the hydrogen gas to float away, or even ignite outside of the system (engine).

Interesting to see that you're fully reading those books, because I am not. Most likely, I would not get anything out of them as I am trying to rip apart this idea (purposely).

I know enough about chemistry (not to toot my own horn) and have heard enough from my university professors that this is not a system that has a high probability of working. It has been proven to work from a chemical perspective, but from an automotive perspective, we've only reached the tip of the iceberg.

Again, we're working in a garage while others have labs. Our results won't attain much better than that of those who have beaten the hell out of this idea.

 

I'm baaaaaaack......... So the combination of legitimate criticism here, and the fact that my truck STOPPED RUNNING about a week ago (zero hydrogen, or related modifications involved), has delayed progress on this, but, it's given me some thinking time!

First of all the truck problem, and I'm thinking many of the chronic problems I've been experiencing lately, was due to a just all around old tired carb. I popped on a new one, and WHAM we're off to the races. Best gas mileage I've ever gotten (10 haha), and perfectly reliable, every start.

ANYWAY though, this is what popped into my head. The reason that you can supposedly save gas by adding hydrogen, is because the way you get it in, is essentially by causing a huge vacuum leak. Into that leak though, you are putting PREMIXED air-fuel mixture. That's the key! If you were just pumping in a minuscule little amount of pure hydrogen, you would have to rejett (down) your carb, at the very leeeeast to save any gas, and probably just to make it run right. Extra fuel, same amount of air, means rich. That creates problems like, what happens if you forget to turn on your hydrogen one time? Or, say something in this home built, rigged up bathtub kind of system, just konks out. Then you're running lean, pinging, all sorts of horrible stuff! That is why the vacuum leak concept makes so much sense. You don't have to jet down, because what you are actually doing, is supplementing the carburetor with fully ready to burn air fuel mixture. For this concept to work, the hydrogen and air has to be added BELOW the throttle plates on the carb, and (in theory) it actually causes the carb to open less, because there is less VACUUM! There is less vacuum, because you are creating a vacuum leak, and that vacuum leak is OK, because all that is getting in at it, is STILL A FUEL.

There may also be something here as far as efficiency of the alternator generating power to make that hydrogen, since only a very small amount of hydrogen is actually necessary to get regular air to a burnable mixture ratio.

Remember also, one part pure oxygen is generated for every 2 parts hydrogen. The air all around us, the stuff we are taking in to our engines, is only 20% or so oxygen. No homemade hydrogen oxygen generator is ever going to generate enough gas to run an entire engine on, BUT, this pure oxygen, counts for 5 times the explosive power of average atmospheric air.

Interesting to me...

No real progress other than conceptually yet, been busy with work finally, but this sin't dead yet.

Will keep you guys posted! AleX